Friday, April 20, 2007

Noam Chomsky Accuses Alan Dershowitz of Launching a "Jihad" to Block Norman Finkelstein From Getting Tenure at Depaul University

Professor Norman G. Finkelstein wrote a book called "Beyond Chutzpah:On the Misuse of Anti-Semitism and The Abuse of History', a point by point debunking of Alan M. Dershowitz's "The Case for Israel". If you can't win intellectually, you try to convince the governor of california to intervene because the book is published by The University of California. That didn't work, so Dershowitz is attacking Finkelstein's tenure at DePaul University. The highly public feud between Norman G. Finkelstein of DePaul University and Harvard Law School’s Alan M. Dershowitz has taken an unusual procedural twist, with Mr. Dershowitz attempting to weigh in on Mr. Finkelstein’s bid for tenure at DePaul. How Mr. Dershowitz’s move will play out remains to be seen. Mr. Finkelstein’s department supported his tenure bid, but the dean of his college has refused to support him. A final decision is expected next month. Yesterday on the Radio show Democracy Now, Amy Goodman discussed this issue with Noam Chomsky.

I asked Noam Chomsky about political science professor Norman Finkelstein, one of the country's foremost critics of Israel policy, and his battle to receive tenure at DePaul University, where he has taught for six years. Professor Finkelstein's tenure has been approved at the departmental and college level, but the dean of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at DePaul has opposed it. A final decision is expected to be made in May. Finkelstein has accused Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz of being responsible for leading the effort to deny him tenure. In an interview with the Harvard Crimson, Dershowitz admitted he had sent a letter to DePaul faculty members lobbying against Finkelstein's tenure. I asked Noam Chomsky about the dispute.

NOAM CHOMSKY: The whole thing is outrageous. I mean, he's an outstanding scholar. He has produced book after book. He's got recommendations from some of the leading scholars in the many areas in which he has worked. The faculty -- the departmental committee unanimously recommended him for tenure. It's amazing that he hasn't had full professorship a long time ago.And, as you were saying, there was a huge campaign led by a Harvard law professor, Alan Dershowitz, to try in a desperate effort to defame him and vilify him, so as to prevent him from getting tenure. The details of it are utterly shocking, and, as you said, it got to the point where the DePaul administration called on Harvard to put an end to this.

AMY GOODMAN: That's very significant, for one university to call on the leadership of another university to stop one of its professors.

NOAM CHOMSKY: To stop this maniac, yeah. What's behind it? It's very simple and straightforward. Norman Finkelstein wrote a book, which is in fact the best compendium that now exists of human rights violations in Israel and the blocking of diplomacy by Israel and the United States, which I mentioned -- very careful scholarly book, as all of his work is, impeccable -- also about the uses of anti-Semitism to try to silence a critical discussion.And the framework of his book was a critique of a book of apologetics for atrocities and violence by Alan Dershowitz. That was the framework. So he went through Dershowitz's shark claims, showed in great detail that they are completely false and outrageous, that he's lying about the facts, that he's an apologist for violence, that he's a passionate opponent of civil liberties -- which he is -- and he documented it in detail.Dershowitz is intelligent enough to know that he can't respond, so he does what any tenth-rate lawyer does when you have a rotten case: you try to change the subject, maybe by vilifying opposing counsel. That changes the subject. Now we talk about whether, you know, opposing counsel did or did not commit this iniquity. And the tactic is a very good one, because you win, even if you lose. Suppose your charges against are all refuted. You've still won. You've changed the subject. The subject is no longer the real topic: the crucial facts about Israel, Dershowitz's vulgar apologetics for them, which sort of are reminiscent of the worst days of Stalinism. We've forgotten all of that. We're now talking about whether Finkelstein did this, that and the other thing. And even if the charges are false, the topic's been changed. That's the basis of it.Dershowitz has been desperate to prevent this book from being -- first of all, he tried to stop it from being published, in an outlandish effort, which I've never seen anything like it, hiring a major law firm to threaten libel suits, writing to the governor of California -- it was published by the University of California Press. When he couldn't stop the publication, he launched a jihad against Norman Finkelstein, simply to try to vilify and defame him, in the hope that maybe what he's writing will disappear. That's the background.It's not, incidentally, the first time. I mean, actually, I happen to be very high on Dershowitz's hit list, hate list. And he has also produced outlandish lies about me for years: you know, I told him I was an agnostic about the Holocaust and I wouldn't tell him the time of day, you know, and so on and so forth.

AMY GOODMAN: You mean that he made that charge against you?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Of course, and on and on. I won't even talk about it. What's the reason? It's in print. In fact, you can look at it in the internet. In 1973, I guess it was, the leading Israeli human rights activist, Israel Shahak, who incidentally is a survivor of the Warsaw Ghetto and Bergen-Belsen and headed a small human rights group in Israel, which was the only real one at the time, came to Boston, had an interview with the Boston Globe, in which he identified himself correctly as the chair of the Israeli League of Human Rights. Dershowitz wrote a vitriolic letter to the Globe, condemning him, claiming he's lying about Israel, he's even lying about being the chair, he was voted out by the membership.I knew the facts. In fact, he's an old friend, Shahak. So I wrote a letter to the Globe, explaining it wasn't true. In fact, the government did try to get rid of him. They called on their membership to flood the meeting of this small human rights group and vote him out. But they brought it to the courts, and the courts said, yeah, we'd like to get rid of this human rights group, but find a way to do it that's not so blatantly illegal. So I sort of wrote that.But Dershowitz thought he could brazen it out -- you know, Harvard law professor -- so he wrote another letter saying Shahak's lying, I'm lying, and he challenged me to quote from this early court decision. It never occurred to him for a minute that I'd actually have the transcript. But I did. So I wrote another letter in which I quoted from the court decision, demonstrating that -- as polite, but that Dershowitz is a liar, he's even falsifying Israeli court decisions, he's a supporter of atrocities, and he even is a passionate opponent of civil rights. And this is like the Russian government destroying an Amnesty International chapter by flooding it with Communist Party members to vote out the membership.Well, he went berserk, and ever since then I have been one of his targets. In fact, anyone who exposes him as what he is is going to be subjected to this technique, because he knows he can't respond, so must return to vilification.And in the case of Norman Finkelstein, he sort of went off into outer space. But it's an outrageous case. And the fact that it's even being debated is outrageous. Just read his letters of recommendation from literally the leading figures in the many fields in which he works, most respected people.

AMY GOODMAN: Most interesting, the letters of support from the leading Holocaust scholars like Raul Hilberg.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Raul Hilberg is the founder of Holocaust studies, you know, the most distinguished figure in the field. In fact, he says Norman didn't go far enough. And it's the same -- Avi Shlaim is one of the -- maybe the leading Israeli historian, has strongly supported him, and the same with others. I can't refer to the private correspondence, but it's very strong letters from leading figures in these fields. And it's not surprising that the faculty committee unanimously supported him. I mean, there was, in fact -- they did -- the faculty committee did, in fact, run through in detail the deluge of vilification from Dershowitz and went through it point by point and essentially dismissed it as frivolous.

AMY GOODMAN: They rejected a 12,000-word attack, point by point.

NOAM CHOMSKY: Aside from saying that the very idea of sending it is outrageous. You don't do that in tenure cases.

AMY GOODMAN: So, how do you think it will turn out?

NOAM CHOMSKY: Well, the usual story: this depends on public reaction.RENEGADE EYE

Finkelstein has never been to Israel.I haven't either. But he shouldn't be regarded as an expert. He has an agenda, and that agenda includes playing to the David Dukes of the world, who love his message.

What you linked only serves to confirm that Chomsky is below the bottom of the recepticle holding the scum.

Beaj,

Your link does indeed show that Finkelstein is trying to compete with Chomsky for his scuzzy distinction. He's not even coherent. He is amateurish and unprepared. For the record, I'm no fan of Dershowitz either.

The thing about Chomsky is that he is a very interesting theoretical linguist but a very unoriginal and simplistic political theorist. But still: if that is the best the US Left can come up with then that’s their (characterstic) problem.

As far as US universities only wanting Political Correct lecturers…so what’s new? Been going on for decades.

As usual Israel is being used by both sides as a grandstanding issue. The American left and right can try and look relevant by taking stands on Israel/Palestine when they have fuck all to say about the problems in their own country.

Communists have alot invested in the thrice fired Finky. The dance with Finky, Chomsky, Kovell is an attempt to deflect attention from the anti-semitism that is clear and evident among the Communist left.

Communist like to play the authenticity game with various ethnicities, but none more so than Jews. A similar game is played with Prof Thomas Sowell and Walter Williams who are deemed not authntic. These same people promote Mental Ward Churchill as authentic and Dr David Yeagley as a fake. This same mindset is also part of the Rigoberta Menchu hoax.Menchu gave Commies the story they wanted to hear,didn't matter if it was fiction. More curious only Communists seem to find illiteracy a good thing.

The Elmer Fudd obsession with Joooscontinues at this blog. The thrice fired Finkelstein has published almost zero articles. Books are not a criteria that is considered.

The thrice fired Finky has only exposed himself as a clown. He has been proven wrong many times.

Moreover, all work published by Communists are suspect. How many Rosenberg and Hiss innocent boks are out there? Communists as frequent rewriters of history have agenda and motives for bufoonery.

Gosh, this story sure brought out all the haters, nut cases and closet brown-shirts didn't it? I wonder why the right-wing lunatic fringe has such a bone on about Chomsky? Probabably because he is so relentessly logical and they live in some drweam land of logical fallacies?

Beatroot: Vacuous? Norman Finkelstein's tenure issue, was a routine administrative issue, until the intervention of Alan Dershowitz. Finkelstein discredited his book on Israel's human rights record. This is a freedom of speech issue, cenyered at DePaul University, USA.

Interestingly Trotsky invented the word politically correct. It was to describe anti-Stalinist Bolsheviks.

The Republican Party will be having its convention near where I live. That will be a local issue for me. Already the anarchists are organizing. I think the big demonstrations should be at the Democratic convention. They are going to be the ones in power, for decades to come.

Communists play a beard game with Jews to cover up pathological anti-semitism in their ranks. This anti-semitism starts with Marx and has a lengthy history on the far left.

Commies like to play a beard game and attempt to disguise the Communism of Jewish critics of Israel. Lets see Finky's quote"Israeli Jews are a parasitic class" is standard Communist BS. The quote is only true if the Israelis in question are Communists. Communists are societalparasites wherever they reside. Finky also rehashes worn out Soviet propaganda proven false in his scriblings.

The truth is Communism is a mentalpathology. People who suffer from this malady are not Jews, Americans, Poles, Italians or Catholics. They are disturbed nuts with a history of treason, deception and genocide.

Communist scholars have mountains of books proclaiming the innocence of the Rosenbergs, Hiss yada yada yada. Now Communist scholars proclaim the Rosenberg's had a different definition of patriotism, called treason by everyone else. Scholarship produced by Communists is tainted and worthless.

Had Finky's quote about Israeli Jews been said about any other group he would have been tarred and feathered. Books he claim were not translated into Yiddish sit in the Harvard library.

I wonder why the right-wing lunatic fringe has such a bone on about Chomsky?

I am glad you asked. That's the reason:

the deaths in Cambodia were not the result of systematic slaughter and starvation organized by the state but rather attributable in large measure to peasant revenge, undisciplined military units out of government control, starvation and disease that are direct consequences of the US war, or other such factors.

The truth is Dershowitz is a Civil Liberties liberal. Finky who you support has his book pedled on actual Neonazi websites. The truth is Communist and Nazis have a long history of working together.

Finkelstein is a well known crank and anti-semite so you have pleny in common. Like your 9-11 conspiracy cranks Finky makes absurd charges that have been proven false. Elie Wiesel whom Finky calls a clown was accused of lying on the irrelevant minor point in a book about Wiesel Reading Kant in Yiddish. Contrary to Finky's claim the book was translated into Yiddish in 1929 and you can see it in the Harvard Library.

If anything this post has proven your rabid anti-semitism is well established. "Israeli Jews are a parasitic class" Freequent Israeli-Nazi comparisons and support for Narco-Nazi Hezbollah are all verified in seconds.

More to the point the beard game Commies play with Jews doesn't work. Commies present Chomsky, Finky, Koevel all as average Joooswho are outraged by Israel. The reality is that they are hardened communists who have made a career of catering to anti-semitic Communists looking to rationalize their bigotry.

Troutsky you are advocating policies that have been proven hazardous to human life. Maybe the reason you are called a psycho is that you are a psycho. One could argue that Communists in the thirties were idealists who did not know better. However, there a Communist in this day and age may as well be a member of the flat earth society.

Chomsky's involvement in the Finkelstein afffair led me to re-read what Chomsky had to say in the late '70's about Khmer Rouge rule in Cambodia, following the overthrow of the Lon Nol regime. Chomsky wrote with fiery and absolute conveiction, and with endless scorn for those who took a contrary position, including Times reporter Sidney Schanberg, who was an eyewitness to the early stages of Pol Pot's program. Above all, Chomsky minimized or dismissed outright all reports of Khmer Rouge atrocities against the civilian population and ethnic minorities.

It turned out, of course, that Chomsky was as dead wrong as its possible for one individual to be on an important matter, and that his inane misreading of what was happening in Cambodia came, not from any reasonably objective study of available facts, but from Chomsky's own blind dogmatism and from refusal to consider that his declared ideological enemeies might be right about anything at all.

Chomsky's spouting-off was a deadly embarassment to the left, though not unprecedented. Remember all those fatuous rationales for the Cultural Revolution in China, the Hitler-Stalin Pact, the Moscow purge trials--and on and on and on.

But the left never really learns, does it? All those terrible misjudgments just go down the memory hole-- and then it's on to something new, but equally dogmatic, equally designed to bolster the left's self-righteous sense of heterodoxy and contrarian defiance, equally shoddy in point of respect for ascertainable fact, and equally viscious in its dismissal of criticism.

The attempt to make a martyr out of a sad piece of business like Norman Finkelstein is the latest absurdity to emerge from this long, dimwitted tradition. Chomsky is about as reliable a guide to the ethics of the situation and to the facts of the underlying political situation in Palestine and the Middle East as he was to the behavior of the Khmer Rouge.

Finkelstein is a shoddy opportunist who has figured out that merely being a loudmothed contrarian is enough to secure a supportive claque from the would-be radical simpletons who infest academic life. Ward Churchill played the same game, with comparable honesty. There will be some justice if Finkelstein suffers the same fate.

There is a long history of Western Leftist apologists for communist atrocities. They have supported such upstanding citizens as Kim Il Sung, Mao, Stalin - remember Walter Durante's "Soviet Miracle," Ho Chi Mihn, Castro, Daniel Ortega the outpouring of love and affection for the South American communists spearheaded by Chavez and yes Chomsky supporting his good friend Pol Pot.

Communism, socialism, central government control is simply morally and intellectually indefensible.

Chomsky is praised and held up because he is outrageous, not because he is salient or even remotely rigorous. He links unrelated events and statements as would a four year old in a sandbox dispute. Finklestein can't even claim that, he's simply an idiot, who like his mentor, says some outrageous things.

Unfortunately, the state of secodary and post graduate education in America, is political rather than scholarly and the leftists are in control. More evidence of this was presented to me yesterday by a Vanderbilt Ph.D. candidate in theology, a political liberal, who has to re-write his proposal because the theology department believes the Bible to be a political document, not a historic or even literary - political?!

Finklestein finds kinship among this group, who despite his inability, repeatedly extend themselves to the boldness of his bent.

luchadorChomsky raised the issue of Finkelstein and Dershowitz on "Democracy Now" earlier this week. The comments are turning to be about him.

His support of Pol Pot amounts to casualty counts, that under estimate US bombing of Cambodia. Chomsky comes from academia. Crunching numbers is what he is about. Is Hitchens a supporter of Pol Pot as well. He defended Chomsky.

If you read his accounts of the Russian revolution, they read like they are written by Sonia. When I read his accounts of Lenin and Trotsky, I thought I was reading Sonia-Belle.

Chomsky supported John Kerry in 2004. That is like supporting Bush-Lite. His rationale was typical lesser evil arguments.

Nobody mentioned he supported the US intervention in Serbia. The Guardian retracted their genocide supporter accusation.

Your version about the Pol Pot fiasco bears no relation to the actual event. Eyewitnesses to the Pol Pot attrocities were telling the world what happened. Noam Chomsky relies on an obscure communist publication in Australia and slight of hand to claim the eye witnesses were liars or were conveying a local attrocity.

Using a similar technique I can use supermarket tabloids to have space aliens as the father of Anna Nicole's child. Chomsky cites obscure communist publications withannonymous sources. When he isn't doing that he is inventing quotes.He has admited to fabricating quotes alleged to have come from President Truman. At this point eminent Historian Arthur Schlesinger calls him an intellectual crook.

Chomsky is a communist and a hard core anti-semite who talks of phantom US-Nazi alliances and ignores genuine Soviet Nazi alliances. Among his more insane rants are Israel is the source of funding for the Italian Red Army.He compares the rescue mission in Entebe to Pearl Harbor. He uses frequent Israeli- Nazi comparisons.

"Jews have a genetic determined tendency toward usury and domination" "The Jewish community is deeply totalitarian.They do not want freedom."

About NYC "huge Jewish Population, Jewish run media, Jewish mayor and domination of cultural and economic life" There is also the famous quote Jews have 98% of the power and want to have total control.

A professor making these remarks about any other group would have been fired long ago.

About Finky "Israeli Jews are a parasitic class".

What type of nut thinks Elie Wiesel's credibility rests on if he read Kant in Yiddish in 1939.His technique is similar to the Holocaust and 9-11 conspiracy crew.FYI Kant in Yiddish was publishined in 1929 and a copy is aailable in Harvard's library.What relevance does the Kant book have?

Finky will work in Europe and market a book about his victimization. Being fired will increase his speaking fees and book sales.

Hitchens is wrong about many things. He still supports Allende and the Sandinistas. And he still thinks that Mother Teresa's dealings with Papa Doc Duvalier made Mother Teresa look bad... instead of vice versa.

If you read his accounts of the Russian revolution, they read like they are written by Sonia.

Of course Chomsky hates Russian Communism. Russian Communism made capitalist exploitation look good by comparison. It made United States, with all its imperialism and genocide of Native people, look good by comparison.

Chomsky supported John Kerry in 2004

As long as the affection isn't mutual, I wouldn't hold it against Kerry...

Nobody mentioned that because it's not unusual. If Chomsky supported Franco, instead of the anarchists, then it would be worth mentioning.

And you mean you disagree with supporting the anarchists in the Spanish Civil War ? Your hero Trotsky would have been very disappointed. Trotskyists and anarchists died shoulder to shoulder trying to prevent Spain from falling into the hands of totalitarian tyrants, shot in the forehead by Franco's fascists and in the back by the Stalinists...

Funny how nobody would say they oppose Finkelstein's tenure because of his views?

Funny how nobody would say that if Finkelstein gets tenure, he will have the power to fire any teaching assistant who doesn't support Palestinian terrorism....

The US in Vietnam was just as bad as Pol Pot in Cambodia. Chomksy points this out and people can't deal with it. Still. He points out that focusing on Pol Pot is a way to ignore the mass murder that the US commited. Fair point. he calls Pol Pot "horrendous" but why should he have to- isn't it common sense? The US was just as horrendous in Vietnam. A death is still a death.

People don't like someone shoving a mirror in their face, highlighting all their imperfections, and that is what Chomsky does.

Whenever the US is criticized (by an American no less- someone who can actually have an impact on American policy) the right will quickly change the argument to another country's foreign policy and demand that the person criticizing the US also criticize the country of which they have no political voice in. What sense does that make?

demand that the person criticizing the US also criticize the country of which they have no political voice in. What sense does that make?

US is a democracy. When you criticize US policy, you really criticize the opinions of almost 100 million people who voted in the last election. Criticizing a democracy indeed makes no sense. It makes better sense to vote.

Cambodia under Pol Pot had no free elections. Nobody had a right to vote, neither Cambodians nor foreigners. So criticism is the only thing left.

Iceland is a democracy. It's pointless to criticise Iceland. Even if they would do something wrong. Their government has the right to do something wrong.

Burma is not a democracy. Everybody has a right to criticize everything Burma does. Even if they do something right. Their government has no right to do anything, even good things.

Sonia, myself and another anarchist comrade took Chomsky to task years ago over his Cambodian comment. No, he was not gracious about his error. But it is only one error in a life time of working against war and empire, so I am willing to forgive him for it. That I or anyone else should only commit one or two political errors in our lives! The real reason the moonbats have a bone on for Chomsky is that he exposes the fascistic nature of their god US imperialism

I saw on the Neo-Nazi sites, they are fond of Jimmy Carter's book. Is he a Neo-Nazi sympathizer? Anti-Semite?

Jimmy Carter is a disgrace. His last book was an apology for Palestinian terrorism.

But I understand him. I visited the place where he comes from - Plains, Georgia. Nearby is the former Confederate prison of Andersonville - the closest America has to Auschwitz death camp, where Southerners starved to death tens of thousands of Yankee POWs during the Civil War.

It's all about guilt. Carter oozes guilt. He would apologize every day to every persecuted minority about every single injustice ever committed. It's a pathology. He needs help. No, he isn't an anti-semites. Anti-semites aren't so pathetic.

Sonia, hillarious opening comment. An articulate first salvo in a long, never-ending debate.

I could care less about bourgeois intellectuals and their comfortable existence within the ivory towers of America. I hope they're all denied tenure. I hope they all begin to labor on the assembly lines of American factories. Only there shall they be truly radicalized. In the words of Godard, "There is only one way to be an intellectual revolutionary, and that is to give up being an intellectual".

Spam is generally defined as repeating ones self hundreds of times ala John Brown. You were never spammed and do note the threat that you reffer to was made with a cavaet almost apolgy.

In reality I have neither the desire or temperment to spam people. This is the mark of a disgusting low class individual.I may kick the tires of those on the left in Don Rickles mode, but spam is beneath decent bloggers.

I will not spam your blog or any other.

Going back to the original post.What relevance is the minor point of Finky's if Wiesel read Kant in Yiddish? The fact is that it is an absurd charge that was disproven in seconds as a copy of Kant in Yiddish published in 1929 sits in the Harvard library.

Do the terms "professional Jew or circus clown" applied to Wiesel sound like the words of a sane scholar. Do you approve them personally.

Florian has offered to interview you. I preffer not to interview your type. Number one I know the responses ahead of time. As host I am obligated to be civil and not use sarcasm. Lastly, the vast majority of your kind are devoid of humor. A predictable interview with no humor would be no fun.

I find it very curious how several people commenting here seem to have thrown the baby out with the bath water. The issue at stake is not who is good and who is bad, or who has the moral high ground and who doesn't. The issue at stake here is intellectual and academic freedom. The Dershowitz's of the world should be ashamed of themselves. With one side of their mouth they decry the bigotry that led to the travesties of the WWII and the Nazis and with the other side of their mouth they position themselves as thought police pointing fingers and shouting "Traitor" at the top of their lungs in the best (or worst) of the Herman Goering tradition. Wasn't it him who claimed that getting people to follow you was easy, all you needed to do was point to the opposition and call them traitors. Shame on all this bigotry. It is time for everyone to take a deep breath and realize that without free and unintimidating debate, we are all the poorer. Finkelstein offers a view that aims to show that the horrific suffering of the Jews (and others)does not excuse the inhumane actions of the Israelis against Palestinians. More to the point, the suffering of the Jews should not be made into an industry. If there are some who disagree with that view, then let them debate the facts, not denigrate the speaker. More to the point, if we rid our academic halls of free thinking, we might as well have let the Germans, or the Russians, win.

I would rather prefer to banned as it proves my point. Do note that you were not spammed. Moreover, you and your peers have not put up with anything close to what Brown subjected an entire community to.

There was no profanity nor were any racial epithets hurled. You were well aware of the Klan Watch section as well as the satire labeling me a criminal by Brown as you commented on it.

My posts unlike Brown's are on topic. My comminity put up with spam for over a year. Brown also threatened people's children while you lefties seemed to think it was amusing.

I would rather be banned as it shows the inability of your ilk to deal with posts on topic. Your side is naturally totalitarian as well as humorless.

"Naturally totalitarian" And this from someone who accuses us - Goebbels -like, of being Stalinists. And just after Graeme posted my article showing how genuine socialism is democracy extended to the economic sphere.

If you want to hang your hat on academic freedom, then I agree, Dershowitz's interference is absurd, especially given his vitae. However, although he is the wrong person, from the wrong institution to be carrying the water opposing Finklestein, the fact that his colleagues in the department think he is worthy of tenure, surfaces an equally valid set of questions.

I question the strength of the DePaul faculty, their criteria for tenure and what from Finklestein's portfolio warrants such consideration. Finklestein's "scholarship" is objectively, a set of opinions "supported" by a series of unrelated data points. Maybe the students of DePaul don't deserve any better than that, but all of this leads to the question that trumps all others - why would this faculty open their arms to support someone so clearly marginal?

I suspect that it is because of their anti-capitalist, anti-Israel, anti-representative government bias. This obviously has little to do with acquiring an academy that will produce a liberal (in the classic sense) education. From this vantage point the academic freedom argument you make loses all credibility in the context of Finklestein.

Beakerkin: The spamming issue is resolved as far as I'm concerned. I'm glad to have you comment here. My blog depends on opposition. I just wanted the threat rescinded. I certainly wouldn't give you the satisfaction of being banned for your views.

Nobody took any particular joy, in any aspect of your fight with John Brown. Quite frankly I have zero knowledge of what you are talking about related to threats to children.

I'd be glad to do an interview with Florien. I think you don't know me. If you read my early posts, I supported the invasion of Iraq. I did change my position later. Actually my political evolution has much to do with my blogging experience. I never was welcome at the "Lenin's Tomb" blog. I imagine it has to do with being anti-Islamist. My blog is actually a coaltion. Maryam Namazie is not a Leninist, and Marie comes from the anarchist tradition. I agree enough with them to have them write on my blog. Don't host it on your blog, if it bores you. I certainly wouldn't want to bore you.

I don't use that type of language against Wiesel. I wonder where exactly the quote came from.

Thank you Dahlia. Dahlia has a skill I could only dream of. Her blog is liked by neocons to reds like me.

Ortho wins the prize as the most creative contributor to this discussion.

Larry: When you debate in a blog like this, you do it to influence a third person who is reading the comments.

The quote about Weisel being a Professional Jew and a clown is on the web and widely known.

Lets return to crankism or the idiotic mania atteched to a minor point. The allegation that Weisel did not read Kant in Yiddish means what???? Finkelstein's allegations were disproven but the accusation is rather absurd.

This is a Red Herring at best and the entire issue is proof Finkelstein is a crank. There point is irrelevant and unrelated to the major themes in the book. Moreover, there is zero reason to disbelieve Weisel. This proves conclusively Finkelstein is a crank.

FYI When Rigoberta Menchu's book was revealed as a pure hoax was it pulled from courses. A brother who is dead in the book is apparently still living. Menchu's entire book was a fraud, but it is still used because it fits the tastes of Marxist morons in Berkley.

What is the real point about the Kant nonsense? What type of insane nut calls Ellie Weisel a "professional Jew and a clown"?How about these quotes " Israeli Jews are a parasitic class" or "I do not know much about Israel".

Benny Morris points out Finkelstein does zero orignal research. Moreover Morris is highly critical of Finkelstein use of his material. Novick whose book Finky tries to emulate is also critical of the Finkster.

There is no point to the Kant nonsense. His conduct is that of a conspiracy nut ala David Irving.Finky praises David Irving and uses some of the same techniques.What does the irrelevant point about reading Kant in Yiddish say about Weisel?

The episode proves Finky is a crankand not to be taken seriously. Moreover, the exact same techniques he applies on From Time Immemorial can be applied on his own work.

Scholarship produced by Communists is worthless. Would you like me to produce volumes on the Rosenbergs, Hiss and who funded the Communist party.

Finkelstein uses classis Communist jargon, recycles old Soviet propagana and it is blatant. He calls himself a Green in an interviews, but Greens are recycled Commies. The rope a dope bit doesn't fool anyone.

"Israeli Jews are a parasitic class". I wonder where promted that classic Finky.

Till now I didnt see any arguements, just self-proclaimed "einsteins" doing statements. Beakerkin, get me what Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Engels, spoke of a one man show dictatorship, rather than repeating like a parrot what Neo-cons usually argue.

If anything, statistics showed in the UK that the most impressive figure is Marx, actually all academics use his literature (mind you from the 19th century) when showing how capitalism is ruthless.

Moreover, if you use a quote, at least get the reference and the context how it was used...

third, why the blind hatred on a person who exposed the Zionists and tag him antisemite? Aren't we supposed to be academics and seek things as they happened? (It is when people accusing me falling for anti-semitic propaganda for saying Israel was bombing the hell of christian and muslim civilian areas, and I saw them with my own eyes during the July war...duh)

Fourth, those ignorant naive children who consider Stalin, Pol Pot, and the rest as Communists, then obviously you didn't read crap on Communism, and what Communist literature said. (ie, you guys remind me of Saddam Hussein issuing judgements left and right).

Fifth, how does it feel like this blind anger exploding on Marxism without knowing what it is? Personally, I have friends who are Jews, but that does not mean every Jew HAS to be a Zionist, or that is a race theory (sort of reminds us of Hitler's theory of the Aryan Race? Those superior allowed to inherit the earth for this or that reason?) You Neo-cons are doing the same thing...

If anyone bothered to read the German Ideology, then and only then go tell me Marxism sucks or bla bla bla, but since you just assume what you hear, then what can I say? Self-Proclaimed einsteins... putting Judgements without hearing both sides of the story (aka story of Palestine/Israel)...

Go study Academics 101 first...Renegade, I salute you my dear Comrade, and one day these blind racists will be emancipated to fight for their real rights, and accept the fact that we are all equal.

90% Of Greens are recycled Communists just switching one Utopian sceme for another.

MFL

Lets see frequent Israeli-Nazi comparisons made by the Finkster and Chimpanzee fit the bill as clear and evident anti- semitism.

I also want to remind you that the term Neocon is Commie slang for "evil Joooish cabal of republicans". The term was coined by Commie dolt Michael Harringtonto disparage those who were idiots and left the mental slavery of the failed Marxist cult of idiocy.

So now MFL wants to somehow de Marxify Pol Pot. This is the old excuse game that Communist hacks play to avoid association with the logical progression of their schemes. The roots of the Khmer Rouge are quite clear. Do note thatmany of the key figures in that mess trace their idiocy to the French Communist Party. Lets also not pretend the genocidal Baath parties also appear via osmosis.

Lastly Communist and Nazis were alies when convenient. This fact seems to be missing from Chimpanzee's writtings. He writes and speaks of phantom US-Nazi ties but misses the obvious.

The classic Marxist solution to troublesome Muslims is to place them on cattle cars ethnically cleanse a region and send them off to Siberia. However, I will leave the accolytes of class genocide to blame Stalin. The killing started way before he arrived as well, but that is just an inconvenient fact.

Keeping Hitler from invading USSR, with Churchill hoping Hitler would defeat Bolshevism, while the democracies picked up the pieces, was overall a smart move on Stalin's part. How he did things can be criticized. The point is the world is more nuanced, than your simple minded thinking.

Communism is based on internationalism. Pol Pot was an extreme nationalist. What's with the cult of rural life? Part of communism? Communists savor industrialism.

The Green Party is an electoral, reform party. There are radical members. Same as revolutionary socialists, not quite, In Europe the Greens have been rightist.

All you could do to respond to MFL, is play your tired anti-Semite card.

On your blog you wrote that you agreed with me, that there is no point for us to be discussing anything. The difference between you and other conservative people who post here, is the others I find likeable and smart.

Keeping Hitler from invading USSR, with Churchill hoping Hitler would defeat Bolshevism, while the democracies picked up the pieces, was overall a smart move on Stalin's part. How he did things can be criticized. The point is the world is more nuanced, than your simple minded thinking.

Communism is based on internationalism. Pol Pot was an extreme nationalist. What's with the cult of rural life? Part of communism? Communists savor industrialism.

The Green Party is an electoral, reform party. There are radical members. Same as revolutionary socialists, not quite, In Europe the Greens have been rightist.

All you could do to respond to MFL, is play your tired anti-Semite card.

On your blog you wrote that you agreed with me, that there is no point for us to be discussing anything. The difference between you and other conservative people who post here, is the others I find likeable and smart.

Till now, I have not seen any reply but statements. You still have not replied to any of my arguments. Finkelstein’s The Holocaust Industry exposed a lot of dark points, to which you accuse as anti-Semite. It is really funny when the top Jewish scholars or activists have no choice but to be Zionists, which is totally illogical. You fail to tackle history as it happened and rather you repeat, like a parrot, what the CNN says. Moreover, you automatically reject what the others say. Allow me to show you, Chomsky is voted number one critique of US foreign policy through out the world, it never occurred to you the why, or the whole world are dumb, and the Neo-Cons are correct?

Further more, the term Neo-Con is an expression used by the academics, including Joseph Nye, and others which refers to the school in International Relations known as the Offensive Liberals, those who impose by force the free market and naively “democracy” . Nye himself, the co-founder along with Koehane, attacked them and called them as unilateral decision makers rather promote multilateral decisions. So there you go, the father of the “Neo-Cons”, denounced them as well in his book “Soft Power”.

Now you accuse me of demarxifying Pol Pot? I am not doing anything, It was the writings of Lenin, Trotsky, Marx, Rosa, Engels, and others that call the people to rebel against such a dictator, but obviously you do not know that because you have not read anything. Actually, you probably never bothered to read about the German Ideology, a masterpiece written by Marx. Moreover, Marxism deals with the emancipation of the people to fight for their rights, including the likes against Pol Pot. If you read Trotsky’s Revolution Betrayed, you would know why Pol Pot and Stalin are not Communists. But again, you never did, you just issue statements.

Further more, if you read Schwartz’s Origin of the Jews (an Israeli living in Haifa) , he already displays a lot of scenarios whereby the Nazis and Zionists (both racists in fact) had some agreements, on the concentration camps (Check Part III, it is online). Moreover, a lot of Jews could have been saved, but the Zionists shot down the Jewish Refugee Act in the States (how come you forgot that detail?). More importantly, if you watch the Corporation documentary (but of course, his Excellency never did), you would discover that the US corporations kept doing business (with the US administrations’ blessings) with the Nazis, and even invented Fanta for the Nazis. Actually, the Soda Fanta is a Nazi drink… moreover seriously, head of IBM (and I do not mean Branch level) struck deals with Hitler himself to devise data entry for the Nazis to facilitate their “processes” in the concentration camps. Watch it, rather than issue statements, or the creators of the Corporation are anti-semites as well.

Another topic, it is funny you refer to the “Communists” and Nazis, while according to Khrucheve , 82% of the Soviet Army had US technology installations, despite the fact Stalin was on his latter stages a racist towards the Jews.

Please tell me where did “classic marxists” say about Muslims that? If anything they talked about emanicpation of people away from the religious institutions (Check Trotsky’s Cinema, the Church, and the Vodka). So till no you fail to be a reference on anything, rather you are biased in your opinion where people are not allowed to criticize the neo-cons or racist Zionists, even if the top figures in the field disagree with them, or even top Israeli historians like Benny Moris and others. Academics is finding things, unlike Zionists, re-writing things.

I recommend you read marxism in fulll before you attack blindly, like a racist Nazi anything…

Ren, are you suffering from the Frida Kahlo Disease ? (a disease that causes a Trotskyist to develop a sudden affection for Stalin)...

The question isn't whether Stalin was smart or not. The question is whether he was EVIL. I can admire him for his intelligence and still condemn his as the greatest mass murderer in history who makes Hitler look like a small-time amateur by comparison. Can you ?

luchadorSonia: I was responding to Beakerkin's black and white statement about the Hitler/Stalin pact. There is enough to condemn Stalin for, but disrupting Churchill's plan for Hitler to invade Russia first, not even Trotsky condemned that. Trotsky condemned him for not making the best of his temporary reprieve.

My only point was Beakerkin used bad/good terms, for what could have been a smart move.

Trotsky was called a warmonger for calling on Stalin and the democracies, to get militarily ready to fight Hitler, many years before Churchill. When Churchill finally did, he stole Trotsky's speeches.

Pol Pot wasn't a Communist. The Khmer Rouge lineage as well as the BAATH party goes directly to the French Communist Party. The Khmer Rouge also were quite open in their goals and emulating Mao.

Chomsky talks of phantom US-Nazi alliances and frequently compares Israel and the US to Nazi Germany. He merely ommits Communists were allied with Nazis and divided Central Europe. More to the point American Communists sudenly stopped being anti- fascist and became peacnicks until the Soviet Union was attacked and they pull a Linda Blair act.

Do get it into your head that Poles did not want or welcome Communists. Communists also staged a series of massacres that were overshadowed by the Holocaust. Katyn was not isolated. How does Chomsky miss the obvious Communist Nazi alliance compare everyone to Nazis except for the Nazis allies.

FYI About ethnic cleansing Commies do seem to project. Round up those troublesome Muslims, Poles and place them on cattle cars to die in Siberia. Or flood Tibet with immigrants and eliminate it. How about massacring Native Americans with gunships or Hmong villages with flamethrowers?

Sorry there Ren but the hypocrisy starts to become blatant.

Maybe if your kind created a workers paradise in Israel everyone would run to get out.

"typical neocon" this is Commie Code for evil Jewish Republican.Then the left wonders why people deduce they are anti-semites.

Interestingly now Renegade is defending actual alliances with Nazis. Will he be defending ethnic cleansing of Poles, Balts, Tartars. Chechens next? No wait we can blame that on Stalin. How about killing Kulaks or repeated episodes of planned starvation.

The typical excuse about Pol Pot doesn't pass inspection. Lets see Pol Pot emulates Mao and was quite open about it. The Khmer Rouge and the BAATH Parties have their roots in the French Communist party.

Speaking about Pol Pot when witnesses to the genocide were returning Chomsky called them liarsand claimed these were local isolated incedents. He based his opinion on a small communist publication in Australia that neversent anyone to Cambodia. This source is less reliable than a supermarket tabloid.

you still never read a word I wrote, and still issuing empty groundless statements, without replying to a single thing I wrote to you, technically you know zilch on marxism ... how old are you anyways? (lol)

A movement is judged on its actions and history and not its rhetoric. The history of Marx are quite evident and sufficient.

Do note Communists often rewrite history as their kind is deceptive by nature. All scholarship produced by Marxist is worthless. I guess noted historian Schlessinger must now be a neo-con as he described Noam Chomsky as a "intellectual crook" for forging quotes by Truman. Chomsky has admitted this.

how does it feel like this blind anger exploding on Marxism without knowing what it is?

YOU don't know what Marxism is. I do, I lived under it. And this applies to THEORETICAL Marxism (taken from his books) as well as PRACTICAL Marxism (taken from EVERY country that ever tried to implement his theories).

Marx was only right about one thing - Economy is the base of everything. But then, in all his writings, he proceeeded to destroy that very base.

Beakerkin, I still say you didn't reply to any of my arguements nor you have not read a single word about Marxism, as well as you are still issuing empty neo-conish statements. Oh Beakerkin, when stupid Rice tells the world that the US has been spending 30 years trying to Liberate Lebanon from Syria is it true (not that the US sold Lebanon in 1976 and 1990 and cooperated with the Syrians on that issue? What about that? The revolutionary marxists exposed the Stalinists for what they are, you guys do nothing but consider yourself superior and spam other people's blogs)

Sonia, you of all people should discuss about Marxism, specially you like to twist facts according what the US foreign policy tells you (like our earlier debates on Palestine/Israel or Israel/Lebanon or even under the Impression Iraq is liberated, techically, you live in La La Land :D)

Here we go again with the coded anti-semitism. Marx and Islam like any other movement is defined by the practices of its adherents.

More to the point you seem to miss the role of the Pseudostinians and their Marxist allies. The add the Narco-terrorist Hezbollah into the mix and you have a fine mess.

As far as me spamming blogs this is more empty headed rhetoric. None of my comments have ever been duped en masse or laced with vulgarity. If you want to see spam look in your own ranks.

Marxism is a dead end with example after example of failure. Now we have Renegade defending actual alliances with Nazis on a post agitating support for a thrice fired Professor who willingly works with Nazis.

Sorry there but the truth hurts. Shall the accolytes of class genocide defend ethnic cleansing of Poles, Ukranians and Tartars next.Sorry to serve a dose of the truth.

Speaking of Dershowitz do you know any thing about this wife beating hoax thing on the internet. Is this just another shameless attempt to smear Professor Finkelstein's good name. Google Myles O Morales or Dershowitz wife beater and you will see what I mean. And why do you suppose all these Imerican Extremists spend so much time on left wing blogs. Do you think they like feeling naughty.